What are the issues that Catholics and all other Christians agree on?

[c659smith]

Hi Hannah,

Jesus Christ had power to forgive sins, and he conferred this power on the apostles and, through their successors the bishops, on priests. Although priests are sinners themselves, they have Christ’s authority to forgive sins through the sacraments of confession.

“Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

“[Jesus] said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’ And then he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained’” (John 20:21-23).

Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56

 

[HannahLisa]

Hi Hannah,

Jesus Christ had power to forgive sins, and he conferred this power on the apostles and, through their successors the bishops, on priests. Although priests are sinners themselves, they have Christ’s authority to forgive sins through the sacraments of confession.

“Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

“[Jesus] said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’ And then he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained’” (John 20:21-23).

Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56

I’m a bit confused about what you’re trying to convince me of…I never said anything about disagreeing with the sacrament of confession. Are you trying to explain why Catholic priests are the only ones able to consecrate the bread and wine? Or are you trying to convince me of the Real Presence?

 

[c659smith]

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ

Recognizing that problems are apt to arise in the liturgy of the sacraments, an instruction, Inaestimabile Donum (April 3, 1980), of the Congregation of the Sacraments and Divine Worship, quotes Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, II:II, q. 83, a. 1): “One who offers worship to God on the Church’s behalf in a way contrary to that which is laid down by the Church with God-given authority and which is customary in the Church is guilty of falsification.”
l.

 

[c659smith]

What I am trying to convince you of is that Christ gave this extradinary power to his Apostles and successors not deciples.

I have shown scripture on this giving the Catholic Church Authority and testimony from the earliest church fathers.

What would give any other church the authority?

What would call on any other church to defy scripture and take it upon themselves they are authorized or have authority?

Do others have self proclaimed authority?

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Hanna, this is why the only thing I can understand that separates is the issue of authority. Who is in authority? Obviously Catholics believe its the succession as has been quoted. Obviously you (and I) believe this is not so.

Other than that, all I see is both “sides” see Christ. Its HOW its done, performed, thought of, who can or has the authority to do so.

this is why I said earlier to everyone;

Does it make a difference how you see Him? Thats the question. And if it does make a difference, then WHY does it make a difference.

 

[c659smith]

But scripture clearly gives this authority to his Apostles and successors.

That is exactly what I have shown you.

You know what you are doing is to see the color black but for the sake of your own justification will say it’s white.

You are denying scripture clearly

 

[HannahLisa]

My problem with the consecration is that I believe that GOD is the one who changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood. The priest doesn’t have some power that he can use at will; rather, GOD does it. What’s to stop Him from doing it when other people, who are not Catholic or Orthodox priests, do it? Nothing. He is greater than that. I also think the reasoning behind the Scriptural reading of only apostles can do it is shaky. Who’s to say that an Episcopal priest does not qualify as an apostle? Who’s to say that God ONLY recognizes priests who have been consecrated through “valid” apostolic succession?

That being said, considering this thread is about issues that Catholics and other Christians agree on, this post was pretty much completely off topic. :blushing:

 

[Righteousone]

I have actually met a “Bible Alone” - “Born Again” who now “believes” in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist (what ever that means; he hasn’t converted to Catholicism), because I showed it to him in his own Bible.

I think 'Protestant" Christians are all over the map when it comes to this belief and all other Christian beliefs.

In most cases, other than a handful of Bible verses, and a few Christian “sound-bites” that might catch their ear, they don’t really know what they believe, how could they?

That is why, non-Catholic Christianity makes absolutely no sense…It is somewhat schizophrenic by its own nature.

I agree. How can you be Protestant and believe the Real Presence? Weird…
Still waiting for Hanna to tell me which Bible she reads from, with the name of it.

 

[Righteousone]

I don’t know for sure. The quote actually comes from the Episcopalian Rite I Holy Communion service, because that is the church I attended for years and the service I have memorized. I know it comes from the Bible and I’m pretty sure that if you look at another translation the meaning will be the same. (I believe a couple posts up someone found the actual Bible version.)

Also, I obviously don’t believe that a Catholic priest is the only one with the “authority” to change the “Body and Blood into Jesus Christ.” If I believed that, I would be Catholic.

fbl9 – Psalm 23 is a favorite among Christians, I’ve found, more so than perhaps any other psalm. That is why I stated that in such a way.

Then you will be Catholic because it is true.

 

[Righteousone]

My problem with the consecration is that I believe that GOD is the one who changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood. The priest doesn’t have some power that he can use at will; rather, GOD does it. What’s to stop Him from doing it when other people, who are not Catholic or Orthodox priests, do it? Nothing. He is greater than that. I also think the reasoning behind the Scriptural reading of only apostles can do it is shaky. Who’s to say that an Episcopal priest does not qualify as an apostle? Who’s to say that God ONLY recognizes priests who have been consecrated through “valid” apostolic succession?

That being said, considering this thread is about issues that Catholics and other Christians agree on, this post was pretty much completely off topic. :blushing:

The priest has the authority AND ONLY A CATHOLIC PRIEST to change into our Lord, the Body and Blood. The priests are the UMBILICAL CORD TO GOD.

 

[HannahLisa]

I agree. How can you be Protestant and believe the Real Presence? Weird…
Still waiting for Hanna to tell me which Bible she reads from, with the name of it.

I am a Protestant and I believe in the Real Presence. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I use the NLT for my personal use and the Ignatius Bible (Catholic version) for my college’s theology classes.

I will NOT be Catholic if I do not believe what the Church claims to be true.

You have not explained how it is that priests from other denominations cannot possibly ever be used by God in His Wisdom to do the same work that He uses Catholic priests to do.

 

[fbl9]

hi HannahLisa the church did not say other men could not be used by God. but clearly states that those who have fallen away from the apostolic sucession can not validlly consencrate that is they do not have authority as given by the laying on of hands.